Originally posted by thormas
View Post
Now, immediately after their very violenbt demonstration they picketed off the Temple Courts, allowing nobody to pass through either way. There must have been a lot of them by then. All of the above happened on Day 2.
On Day 3 they were back and I'm pretty sure that they were picketing again because the Priesthood came to appeal to Jesus.
A big event, and he got arrested for it three days later. By the way, on Day 1 Jesus and friends just went to the Temple and looked around then left and went back out to Bethany.
If you need to be shown and want links then please ask.
Apostle John never mentioned any of this, in fact he dreamed up a whole different week. More to the point, John never mentioned thosde amazing and exciting experiences that he had when with Jesus, the transfiguration, challengiong a false disciple, etc etc, so for sure I don't believe that John the Apostle was John the Disciple.
Respectfully, I think you're wrong on Jesus' fury at the Temple. In John, he is seen going to Jerusalem a number of times as any good Jew would do in a lifetime and participating in the life of the Temple. So too his followers after his death continue to participate in the Temple. If he was so against it, it is likely that his faithful followers would have followed his lead. I can't speak to the Baptist. Even what was considered the Temple incident was supposedly over what was accepted and necessary for Temple sacrifice and it is probable that disciples of Jesus played the role of changing money so they could sacrifice to God.
Apostle-John spun that timeline. Yes he had a brilliant bundle of accounts but he did not know anything about where or when Jesus did anything. G-Mark describes a 11-12 month campaign by Jesus. I do understand how many Christians cling to John, but tyhis is about Historical Jesus.
Paul preached the essentials: we are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus. He had already established communities and was writing to them about specific issues. A Gospel like narrative would not have been appropriate for his letters. As time when on, as people had more and more questions, so we have the gospels. And the scholars are in agreement about the dates, maybe some minor disagreement, for example 70 or 72 CE.
Actually we can point to the gospels regarding anti-semitism. After the destruction of the Temple, tensions began to run hot between those traditional Jews and those Jews who claimed Jesus was Messiah. And we get to the ridiculous point where the Jews not only clamor for the execution of Jesus but accept blame for his death through all their future generations.
A Disgrace, but he didn't know better. He never knew what Jesus was really about imo..
Historians have shown how such trials took place at that time and the idea that Pilate (a ruthless man who cared nothing for the Jews) of all people would feel guilt or give a choice (of who to execute) to the people is a bit absurd. Plus trials took place inside and there would have been no one there to report the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus, all had abandoned Jesus and they wouldn't have been invited to the trial.
Jesus of Nazareth (the Son of Abba) is executed and Jesus Barabbas (son of the father) is set free. Rome would never free a Zealot, a terrorist who killed their own.
Obviously Christians have Faith. acknowledge all Christian Faiths and Creeds.
Depends on the scholars and the topics........seems there is great agreement on much.
We differ on Mark at the arrest.
John could have been as late as you say but that is not the consensus, so I go with the consensus. John, supposedly the youngest of the disciples was perhaps 20 (?) to Jesus' 33 - so in 110, he would have been around 100 years old. And he wrote the gospels??
The question was resolved over 20 years before Mark - no longer an issue as there were Christian pagan communities all over the known world.
Sure there is historical information, what scholars call the historical gist. But they are not histories, they are faith writings about the good news.
And I respect and appreciate your opinion.
But I do have a question (but if you don't feel like getting into it, I respect that): you identify as a Deist but the NT is written by Theists - do you approach it only as a historian?
But I do have a question (but if you don't feel like getting into it, I respect that): you identify as a Deist but the NT is written by Theists - do you approach it only as a historian?
But I do accept that Christians have Faith, and although this can cause much heat in discussions I try to never forget that threy have belief first and foremost.
Comment